SPECIES-X and AIS: group classifications

I would have to agree that combining all but TB's into a "median" class
would be a shame, silly, and and a whole bunch of other negative sentiments come
to mind. I would agree with Robert that more classes make more sense than
basically none.

It is true that some of the classes tend to be a bit ill-defined or
unnatural, and some of them run together. Even so, I think further
refinement is the answer, not lumping together. The sometimes unclear
definition of the classes has a lot to do with breeding between classes.
Heck, most IB's are the result of breeding TB's with dwarves, and sometimes
there is further backcrossing. Sometimes plants from one pod can fit more
than one class. So it is that MDB, SDB, IB, and even BB and TB tend to be
a bit blurry at the edges. Even so they are very useful and somewhat
natural classifications.

On the argument for more classes I would have to say that it is inevitable
that more classes should be made. New and inventive breeding programs (and
accidents too) create new types of Iris. At first these are represented by
a few novelties, but before long, especially if they become popular, the numbers
of cultivars grow, and they need their own home. The interaction between
the traditional bearded Iris with the Aril species, the Regalia species, the
Psammiris, and even with other previously little used bearded species is
one big way where new classes are developing, and these should be
recognized. Another good example is the tetraploid MTB group (sort of the
same thing, but largely past the species X stage now). To me they are very
different from the diploid MTB's and they should be recognized on their own
merits. They have completely or at least almost completely different
ancestry, and they behave and look different. One more class, that I think
should have been set up a long time ago is a class for the various diploids that
are larger than MTB's. I don't see a way to split them more, and they form
a natural, interesting, and nice group. Now they are variously scattered
between IB, TB, and sometimes BB. This scattering through the classes
obscures their similarities to one another, and their distinctness from more
modern tetraploid BB's and TB's. They are very different from the earlier
blooming amphipolyploid IB's as well. The line between these taller
diploids and the traditional diploid MTB's is a bit fuzzy too.
However, I would still maintain the distinctness, simply because the larger ones
mostly don't have the delicate petite qualities of the MTB's.

The lines will always be a bit blurry between classes, since people can't
resist crossing the lines when they are breeding. Even for the TB's it is
fuzzy (where does TB end and BB start; not so clear-cut sometimes). That
doesn't mean the classes should be lumped together though.